Monday, March 1, 2010
Legislature / Phillips When The State Legislature Becomes a Platform Against Your Ex-Wife
Posted by Betsy Phillips on Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Comments (13)
Showing 1-13 of 13
Great stuff. I guess they had to get away from making real law, like those allowing fish tanks in barber shops.
like
dislike
Is she stupid? He wasn't making a statement ot the media. Whether his statements were "relevant", who knows, but it was testimony in a hearing of the state legislature. They surely cannot stop him from that or this country has flipped its wig.
He was as "affected" by this law as anyone else involved in giving testimony. Should he have brought up specifics of the unrelated portion? Doesn't seem like a lawyer slandering you is "irrelevant" to me. I don't know if the lawyer slandered him or not, but it is relevant. How is anyone else that was testifying have a case that was "more relevant"? I guess it's whose seat your sitting in.
I'm just sick of Evans getting to use her public forum to debase other people who don't have that same forum - like her former nanny. He made no comment to the media. She's turning it into what it wasn't.
It's about time Father's had their fair share at getting custody. Too many mothers use children as pawns for financial gain in divorces, when children should enjoy the same time with BOTH FIT parents.
Her new husband is a nice man. He's a frequent guest at churches across Alabama giving motivational type speeches. He went through a brutal divorce as well. His ex wife had an affair with a tennis instructor at a country club in Mountain Brook.
Robin, take a look at the video. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that, when a guy says he's been silent too long, he's not just stopping there.
I'm no great Sara Evans fan. I mean, shoot, when it came out that she thought that Craig's List was a list Schelske was keeping of his affairs, that was the most hilariously dim-witted thing ever.
But his testimony had nothing to do with the bill under discussion. The presumption of equal custody can't keep your spouse from dragging you through the mud.
And when he says he's been silent too long? I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that testifying before a subcommittee and to an audience of the three people who watched the video is going to be enough.
Dude is pissed.
So, I don't really blame her for stepping in and trying to preempt him from taking this more public.
This article is extremely biased. I have watched the video and read the transcripts, and no where does Mr. Schelske ever mention the word "liar" when referring to Evans or the word "evil" when referring to her attorneys.
Reps.Rich and Hardway never "conceded" that this bill would not address Schelske's situation. They actually supported Schelske's testimony. Where did you get the idea that they "conceded" that Schelske's testimony was"irrelevant"?
The only truthful thing in this article, besides names, is your statement of Rep. Richardson's opinion. Even that was some what twisted. Rep. Richardson didn't think this bill would help in a situation like Schelske's. Perhaps that's because Rep. Richardson does not support this bill.
This article is so slanted it is ridiculous! Schelske gave a testimony supporting this bill and nothing else.
Why twist words to make a man appear bitter when all he is doing is trying to help get a bill past?
Why would any legislator not be in favor of legislation that tries to make divorces less painful and less harmful, financially as well as emotionally, for children. Oh yeah, the divorce lawyers and those who don't care about the ones who suffer from the pain of divorce, innocent children of adults who once professed to love each other and who choose not to honor the vows they took before God, family and friends. Children suffer enough when families are torn apart and I think parents owe it to their children to make the divorce and custody agreements as amicable as possible. It is a shame when decent adult behavior has to be legislated.
Robin: no constitutional right is involved with testimony before a legislative committee. One has no right to testify; one must be invited, permitted, or subpoenaed to speak. Once you're there, your testimony can be controlled, just like in court -- another place where you don't have the right to say anything that comes into your head.
Aunt B's point, as I read the article, was that Mr. Schelske's testimony had little to do with the subject-matter of the actual bill under consideration. To the extent she is correct, the testimony WAS irrelevant to the matter under consideration, and it could have been excluded if the legislators had wished to do so. Why the lawmakers chose to permit the testimony is a question I can't answer.
Freda: good luck on that "legislating decent behavior" thing. Tennessee legislators have been trying to do that for years. That's why Tennessee has "restaurants" that make 80% of their profits selling liquor, and no "bars," as if that would force people to drink less.
You are correct that parents often behave badly and use their children as weapons during divorce proceedings. I don't see how a bill setting up equal custody presumptions between the father and mother will do anything to curtail such behavior. If anything, leveling this playing field is likely to make vituperation and name-calling more common. Look at it this way: if a father has virtually no chance of getting custody, he has no reason to vilify his ex-wife in order to do so. If the odds are even and both parties want custody, however, each has a real motive to blacken the other's name.
Mark:
I do believe Mr. Schelske's testimony had EVERYTHING to do with the subject matter. It's obvious that his ex knew a judge would not take those children away from her because of the way the law is written as it is. But if a judge stands to be censured if he breaks the law and doesn't adhere to the "clear and convincing evidence to the contrary", then he won't allow that kind of petty crap in his courtroom!!!
Father:
Don't get me wrong: I support making fathers and mothers equally eligible to get custody of their children in a divorce. Moms and dads ought to be equal in the eyes of the law, and "the best interest of the children" should be the only yardstick for making custody determinations.
I just don't believe that such a change will eliminate nasty tactics by divorce litigants. Anyone who does believe it has never spent much time in divorce court.
In my judgment, the two most common motives for scorched-earth divorce tactics are (a)the uncharitable but commonplace desire to inflict as much pain as possible on the other party to a failed marriage; and (b)money. Unless you can think of a magic solution to remove these two factors from the divorce equation, you'll never eliminate nasty divorces.
By all means, let's rewrite the laws to make moms and dads equally eligible for custody of their children -- but let's not expect that change to put an end to vindictive divorce proceedings. So-called "no fault" divorce (based on irreconcilable differences) was supposed to do that when the Tennessee legislature adopted it in the 1970's. That didn't work either.
Here is the link to the actual testimony that took place infront of the subcommittee. For anyone who can actually understand the english language and has half a brain on them they can see that while Craig does a piss poor job of wrapping his case and the effectiveness of this bill together in a nice pretty package, the passage of a bill would have a tremendous effect on how parents are trashed by their spouses and attorney in a court and in the eyes of the child. Mudslinging and lies are as common as attorney who over charge in divorce court. The purpose of time wasted on all 3 (for the most part when it comes to the attorneys) is financial and parental time based. If parenting time was automatically decided based on a law such as the bill then a 50% of the purpose for the lies and mudslinging would be reduced. Craig's case was unique based on who he was marrying, but spouses destroying each other for the sake of getting majority custody is not. Joint custody would allow for a child to build an equal relationship with both parents and be able to build the healthiest relationship possible without the influence of a scorned parent. As a an adult child of a divorced I got to chose who's BS I listened to....a child does not. Let's protect the kids from lies and mudslinging as much as possible. We love our children and we want nothing to hamper the relationships we have....why not lay the groundwork to protect those relationships. Hey, it could be you who gets trashed!
